On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 09:08, Not Zed wrote: > if you add received date, you may as well just get all headers. i > reckon on average it'll be smaller (received is normally the biggest > chunk downloaded from the server).
Yea, I know :\ > > also, you could just fudge it and make received == date. thought about doing this, maybe this is what we should do. Jeff > > On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 09:15, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 19:09, Lonnie Borntreger wrote: > > > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 18:07, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > anyways, I guess I can add the Received: header to the list too > > > > (although that boosts the amount of traffic a fair bit since there are > > > > often multiple Received headers and usually they are multi-line). > > > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > Oh, it's not that critical. I just find it sorts more logically for > > > those who have their computer not set up correctly. But if you would > > > prefer to put this work off, no biggie. I'll just change to using the > > > Date field. The "?"'s just threw me off a bit. > > > > I wasn't sighing at you needing the received date, that's fine. I was > > more just frustrated with IMAP/speed demands :-) > > > > I wish that the ENVELOPE command gave us all the headers we need, but it > > doesn't. There's a demand for Evolution's first-time-opening-a-folder > > code to be a lot faster, and I was hoping that my patch would get us a > > good portion of the way there. But we're slowly going back to having to > > fetch the entire header block again. > > > > See, clients like Mozilla-mail seem to use ENVELOPE and so are extremely > > fast for loading the folder for the first time (after that you have the > > summary info for the first chunk of the messages already cached and so > > you only need to fetch the headers for the new messages that have > > arrived since the last time you opened the folder). > > > > Unfortunately, Evolution-mail used to fetch the entire HEADER because we > > did special things like showing Received date (which I had forgotten > > about) and doing mailing-list "magic" for vfolders and such. > > > > I guess I'm just frustrated being forced between a rock and a hard > > place. "Here, now...you have to make Evolution's IMAP folder loading as > > fast as the fastest client but at the same time you have to do MORE." I > > just wish the people demanding the impossible realised how impossible > > the task they are asking for really is. > > > > BTW, my IMAP optimisation patch makes loading a folder for the first > > time somewhere between 2 and 3 times faster than it was previously, > > depending on average header sizes of the messages in that folder. > > > > Not sure how much of an impact asking for all the Received headers will > > make. Hopefully not much :\ > > > > > > hmmm, I forgot that ENVELOPE gives us the needed info for threading > > (in-reply-to and references), so maybe we can request and ENVELOPE and > > then just the extra mlist headers that we care about. I'll have to look > > into doing this I guess. Wonder if that will be faster than asking for > > the specific headers? > > > > > > Jeff > > > > -- > > Jeffrey Stedfast > > Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
